Quinque Viae
Offline I have a question regarding Aquinas' five proofs for God's existence. Could you please point out the logical fallacy in the first three proofs (which I believe to be slightly reworded cosmological arguments, maybe he thought three wasn't a big enough number??).
The Argument of the Unmoved Mover
"The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God."
The Argument of the First Cause
"The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God."
The Argument from Contingency
"The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God."
Also regarding his fourth proof:
The Argument from Degree
"The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But 'more' and 'less' are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God."
It was said that Aquinas critiqued the ontological argument during his lifetime, yet this fourth proof would seem to be exactly that, the ontological argument. Could anyone clear this up??
The fifth and final proof is just a teleological argument, already smashed to pieces by evolution, so I don't need help with that one, just the others.
Thanks in advance,
OhMan.
- Login to post comments
Strict rationalism does not produce existentialism, rater existentialism can complement it such that propositions compel one to live differently.
(1) The Pensees, especially leading up to 233 speaks of a god that seems to good to be true and incomprehensible (although not unaccessible), so it seems. For this reason, he wagers...
(2) He also sought to live out his religion even in spite of some uncertainty, such that in practicing it, it became more "true" to him. This is your "volunteerism" but this does not all he had to say, just apart of it. The one's making the observations I don't think are reducing his philosophy exclusively to this.
(3) Likewise, he rejected the "god of the philosophers" for a more personal god.
($) He also felt there was more to reason than reason had to offer.
While I wouldn't label Pascal an existentialist, his thoughts were things are sympathetic to existential thought.
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
I thought it deviated too...but no one else was posting so I guess no one really cares about the OP anymore.
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
The only ones hung upon such things like, "no way of showing that what you assume to be logic is in fact logic" are those who are asking a "why" question that is unanswerable. I think you're dangerously close to circular reasoning here if not already doing it by presupposing a god...you are using logic to get logic.
On there other hand, I don't there's nothing about logic that suggests that one needs to presuppose it... I don't recall or believe that I ever "presupposed" it, rather I learned it. I tend to think that we observe it in a second-order fashion in the same way one observes mathematics, natural "laws", or language.
But, how does that "hijack" a Christian worldview? The only way it would be "hijacking" the Christian worldview insofar as I can tell is you presuppose the Christian worldview. But any attempt to prove its rationality then would result in one big question begging festival. On the other hand, logic is ideologically neutral. If that's the case, it is inherently atheistic because it does not "presuppose" belief in a deity. It would be the Christians then who are hijacking the atheist's worldview.
So if it possibly natural, there's no need for a special ontological category for it, nor does one need to presuppose a deity to get it.
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
that's right, but that is as true for you as it is for me. You have a faith position which you cannot prove by rationalising. As Kierkegaard would have said, everyone makes a leap. You know you do because you recognise your epistemology is not 100%.......that is an honest existentialist position. I have not asked you to presuppose God's existence, simply not to presuppose his non-existence. Since you can't prove his non-existence, that is the only rational position anyway! That is just one reason why atheism is inherently irrational. I am not setting out to prove the existence of God to you, but simply to examine which of our world-views is founded on reason.
Universal classical truth - 'A' is not 'non-A'.
there's no ultimate reason why we shouldn't all flap our arms to see whether we can fly.........the thing is that "trying" is very creditable. On what basis shall we try it? God tried it with the 10 Commandments and that wasn't a huge success! We should identify whether we mean "normative" as regards "universal" ie that they are rationally clearly seen to be non-arbitrary because they are related to a source of absolute infinite truth. This is the only starting point from which "normative values" are not challengeable by the whims of the individual [or by shifting public opinion]. If normative values are to be truly normative, the universal must be infinite in order to cover challenge by all particulars.
If by "normative" you mean "accepted by society at large".......as I said, God tried it......ok, you qualified it, but either values are "normative or they aren't. What would, "normative as they can be" be on a scale of 1 -10? We have that - the prisons are full.
yes, I wouldn't argue with that .......in fact it makes my point........that was the problem! How one arrives at the truth is totally, totally critical when dealing with the scriptures.
it seems unkind but I think you should re-read this. From a standpoint which fundamentally disconnects reason from reality, how would one know whether something is "true" or not?
precisely!.........but, as an existentialist, if you wished to embrace it, how would you recognise it?
ok, it seems mean to point out that this is your subjective view, not a point of philosophic principle.
Christianity actually accomplishes the opposite. It allows one to live out the truth while holding on to rationality.
I'm sorry.......I'd much rather have this conversation face to face........if you want to email just say. You know that I see this statement as just relativistic and that the critical thing is the rationality of the way you do see it.
ok, I will have to go back to the post. I think we were discussing post-modernism[?]........yes it is relativistic.
yes, this isn't surprising. This is because people confuse Catholicism with Christianity. I am using the term to cover any world-view which accepts a dichotomy between reason and reality. Most people are mystics albeit unconsciously so.
well some conscious existentialists don't but you have to have accepted a dichotomy to arrive at an existential position in the first place. From this point what can one do but wrestle with dialectics. See this:
where else can it go?
no, that's right, it can't go here because it's grown from a rational starting point.
that's right, it can't go here either for the same reason - it would have to endorse some form of spirituality.
as a heresy of Christianity......correct. If you think spirituality per se renders Christianity irrational, we can discuss it!
well, having no universal could be said to render it "ideologically neutral". Would that be your pitch before the Almighty?!
yep, it seems to be external.........the only problem is, they can't prove it exists.
simply because by seeking to remove propositional truth, it seeks to reduce scripture to a set of "interesting stories" which confront mankind with no imperatives.
John 1
The Deity of Jesus Christ
1">(A)In the beginning was ">(B)the Word, and the Word was ">(C)with God, and ">(D)the Word was God.
2He was in the beginning with God.
3">(E)All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
4">(F)In Him was life, and the life was ">(G)the Light of men.
5">(H)The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not [a]comprehend it.
“He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.”- 1 John 5:12
3">(O)Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who ">(P)according to His great mercy ">(Q)has caused us to be born again to ">(R)a living hope through the ">(S)resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
4to obtain an ">(T)inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and ">(U)will not fade away, ">(V)reserved in heaven for you,
5who are ">(W)protected by the power of God ">(X)through faith for ">(Y)a salvation ready ">(Z)to be revealed in the last time.
how many propositions from how many authors would you like?
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.
but historically, we can see that it does, and we can see this both within academic existentialism and within society at large.
on what conceivable basis does existentialism place an imperative on anyone?
yes, he challenged men to gamble their eternity since he held that God could not be proved by rational argument. He was not a Rationalist, but that doesn't make him an existentialist [as you agree]....but it doesn't mean that he evinces existential thought forms either. To assert that God cannot be proved by reason is not synonymous with disconnecting reason from scripture. In fact it concurs with my approach here. What we can do is to ascertain whether:
1] The Christian world-view is the most rational.
2] Biblical propositions supply the most rational basis from which to make a "leap of faith".
but his "more true" is not in a philosophic existentialist sense........he would simply agree with Paul that, "we are being saved" and that "faith without works is dead".
no doubt the quality of critique varies a good deal - I simply point out that it is a common error. The implication was the flawed claim that he put more emphasis on the will than the intellect.
so would I - such rejection is not irrational unless you can show his "personal God" is irrational....... it may have been since he was a Catholic.......it depends whether he was Biblically saved.
yes, I agree with him, since God's reason transcends ours.
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.
the issue is not whether anyone is "hung up" on it but whether the qquestion is genuine. It may be unanswerable from your point of view but the whole point is that it isn't from mine. The question , how can the materialist purport to use a non-material entity is by no means circular. You may complain that my answer is circular, but I would simply point out that philosophers have been trying to complete the circle since the 18th century.
but I have not requested that you presuppose God. I have merely pointed out that atheists irrationally presuppose logic.......the fact that my Christian position confers rationality on my use of it, since I do believe in non-material entities is besides the point. Since the whole point of the debate from my standpoint is to elucidate the rational advantages of the Christian world-view, you can hardly expect me to ignore them......that would reduce the discussion to absurdity.........you are apparently expecting me to argue for your point of view!
but how you came by it is not my point.......my complaint is that you purport to use it since atheists don't believe in non-material entities. You presuppose that it is universal, you presuppose with no reference point that it is in fact logical.
see above - the Christian believes in non-material entities.
no it wouldn't , it is possible to demonstrate the rationality of the Christian position without presupposing the existence of God. Conjecture regarding the possibility of his existence is not synonymous with presupposing it. Laws of Logic are presumed by the atheist to be universal. On what basis?
no it isn't, logic isn't something which floats around waiting to be used, it exists in the mind of the user. That mind is either subject to the lordship of Christ or it isn't.
but it isn't.
no but it presupposes a universal which it doesn't possess.....that's what makes it irrational.
no because they do have a universal and they don't presuppose a deity either........they met him.
but it isn't........either it's material or it isn't........show me a lump of logic.......or it available as a gas?
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.
Didn't we discuss "shorter posts" and running 4 in a row doen't help.
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
Keirkegaards leap was not to "truth" but rather living according to that truth, even if one is not sure.
I think your evaluation of atheism applies only to the ontological variety, such that you are creating yet another straw man. Even with this, I still don't think you're evaluations is true because the ontological variety concludes the nonexistence of a deity rather than assumes it. Atheism, at least for the epistemic variety, (which I think contains the most atheists) does not presuppose anything about nonexistence. Rather one remains uncertain about the existence of anything until it is shown to exist. This is the difference between the ontological statement, "God does not exist" and the epistemic statement, "I don't believe in a god."
This is a descriptor for a proposition as true or not true, and as far as I know, no one here is arguing against this.... To call this "Classical truth" is somewhat of a misnomer (and to be quite honest, confusing) because it says nothing about the actual truth value of the proposition, and it's the value rather than the mode of the proposition that "truth" is concerned with.
You're dangerously close, and it is necessary for the success of some of your arguments. You may have already done so....
There is an "ultimate reason". It's a function of gravity and not enough lift being generated by one's arms flapping to over come gravity's force.
Again, you have to presuppose a god (particularly Yahweh) to get this.
You're conflating existential truth and propositional truth again.
The point of pointing this out was and the whole reason I brought up Ancient Semitic literature at all is that they did not seemed to preoccupied by trying make rational proofs, rather they were more concerned about the practical implications.
I think I've already said this: existentialist are not necessarily concerned about the truth value of a proposition. Some don't care at all and how they would know is irrelevant. Besides, that wasn't the point anyways.
Existentialism's concern is not about truth per se, it is more concerned about the implications of truth.
The only reason I mentioned it was becasue it appeared you were conflating existentialism with postmodernism.
I think you may be using it too broadly then.
2+2=4. Now what? This is of course rhetorical, but left alone, there is nothing about the proposition that compels me to live any differently.
It can be complementary from rationality, but is not necessarily. I'm not arguing for irrationality here.
Spirituality? Why is necesarily true?
So are you arguing for some sort of solipsism then? Because that's were this line of thinking seems to be going.
I never said that it "seeks to reduce scripture to a set of "interesting stories" which confront mankind with no imperatives." You're overstating my position....
This is precisely what I'm getting at: Where are the dialetic arguments used to produce any of these claims? The truth of these statements is not proven, rather assumed.
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
Existentialism is reaction against it...I don't think that's what I'd call "producing" it.
The imperative of existentialism is personal responsibility to one's self.
I'll let you decide according to your religious convictions.
That's a punt to mystery and transcendence if I haven't seen one. And I'm the mystic?
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
I don't think see what you're doing. You're using logic to get it, which is viciously circular.
I'm not supposing it's universal or anything about it. I'm not even asking that question. The only one concerned with this seems to be you. All I'm saying is that I learned it by way of observation.
Then logic is relativistic as the user and cannot be universal and your position is self-refuting and we're not talking about the same thing. That is, you have your logic and I have my logic, and my logic is different from your logic.
Rather, if we are talking about the same thing, it is something neutral no matter what mind contains it. Again, if you want to presuppose Chistian theism, in this case as a logical axiom, feel free. But not about of rationality could prove it because it would reseult in question begging.
What is it presupposing, then?
Through logical means or not? If they used logical means then it was through the atheistic world view. Otherwise it was through some other means, which defintionally would make how they "met him" irrational.
A "lump of logic" is absurd. I suppose I could produce some grey matter between my ears as a "lump of logic", but otherwise logic is propositional and process oriented. Show me a "flying" or a "running". Such things don't have a "material" referent, rather these are descriptors of material processes. If this is the "non-material" you're getting at, then you're just equivocating. I have no reason to believe these things are anything but natural.
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
Actually, this could be a pretty interesting thread, but I have no time to read excessively long posts.
As one my friend told me, if he can't express what he wants to say in 2 minutes of a phone call (or a few sentences of text) then such a conversation is just a spam.
Sorry.
LOL! I get tired of posting long posts too....maybe I'm obsessed?!?!?
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
please show how. The question is simple - do you believe in non-material entities or not? There......I haven't used logic except in framing the question. Your answer is.....? I am entitled to use logic because I do........your excuse is?
you don't need to. Your questions to me clearly show that you assume that we share the same logical premises. That's why we term logical premises, 'Laws'. I asked the question.
as i said, my question does not concern how you came by it.
however the problem is that we know that they aren't. If the Laws of Logic do not exist then rationality does not exist and everything is absurd. 1 + 1 could equal anything........possibly a chair......who would know? Furthermore, my question wasn't about its universality, which is assumed by everyone, but about your basis for using it.
people will employ logic in favour of both good and evil.......it's a digression. It does not impinge on my point. If you think there's no such thing as evil logic that's fine......I refer you to the Third Reich.
but I haven't and you can't show where I have. What I have done is:
1] Draw your attention to the fact that the Laws of Logic exist
2] Draw your attention to the fact that Logic is a non-material entity
3] Point out that atheists are materialists
4] Point out that materialists don't believe in non-material entities
5] Ask why you, as an atheist, purport to use a non-material entity.
Which of the above points require the presupposition of a deity by me or anyone else?
see above.
it presupposes that logic is in fact logic ie. its existence. It presupposes its universality. It purports to use an entity while simultaneously declaring that said entity does not exist.
the atheist claim is that a committment to Christianity is never logical. My challenge to them is to prove it.
well, I've asserted above that atheism is profoundly irrational and explained a little of my basis for so doing...... you are welcome to seek to refute it. An atheistic world view involves an irrational presupposition that God does not exist. A man only finds God by seeking him. A man cannot be seeking God while simultaneously presupposing that he does not exist.........furthermore, such a stance is unscientific.
Thus, to find God, an atheist needs to become more rational..
you and I do not have to argue the point that everyone "makes a leap". The leap into Christianity is only irrational if it can be shown to be taken from an irrational standpoint. ie it makes sense to opt for Christianity if the reasons for doing so are clearly better than the reasons for opting for any other world-view. My case is that they are. My concern for you is that your family presents a huge emotional obstacle for you - aren't they all Penty?........but that's another issue.
well quite!! It is absurd but what can the materialist say? You know your brain is not "logic"......but that is precisely what the materialist claims........ he confuses the medium with the message.......it's all he can do. You see we don't have 3 categories of entity, material; non-material and process orientated.
you know this isn't true. If "logic" were the description of a "material process" I could watch it happening but with an MRI scanner I can't observe your logic, all I can observe is your neural activity. This will tell me nothing at all about your logic.
are you sure I'm the one equivocating........ what am I holding back?
don't you? and do you believe that the music from your speakers is synonymous with the electro-magnetic
signal running through the cables? By adding this post I have added content......does my laptop weigh more? Have I added materiality?........hang on while I check...........
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.
I don't know that you've realized it....when I said earlier that those that ask the "why" question will end up begging the question. It is largely because of things like you're doing that they do. The question is simply unanswerable because (1) you have to have exhaustive knowledge of all possible propositions to know that logic is universal, (2) you have to have some means to knowing about non-material things, and (3) you're attempting to build a case for your description of logic using that logic, which is circular.
But I'm not terming it "law", or if I did, it was not in the same way you are doing it. I think you want me to say that. I said I'm not even asking these sort of questions. The reason I offered how I learned logic is to show that there is no need to posit anything more than that. Somewhere you missed that though. Additionally, universality is what your entailing such that you think it is "assumed by everyone" I'm not assuming it, so your assumption about universality is false.
Reductio ad Hitlerum at work. Godwin was so right....
"Good" and "Evil" are irrelevant to logic.
No one is denying logic exists. But to call such things "laws" is a stretch. You'd probably do well to read Godel and what he has to say about incompleteness and logical systems. Logic is messy...really messy.
But what you haven't shown is that logic is non-material, rather made unsubstantiated claims to such things. All you've really done is beg the question.
While such things might not show up on an MRI (but this is not entirely true, as some scans are beginning to show patterns) Biologically, we do not fully understand the mechanism of how thought works, but invoking non-material explanations for such things is at best an argument from silence. On the other hand, one stands inductively to reason that logic is contingent upon brains because logic as we know it fundamentally comes from brains. This entails then that for logic to exist, it has necessary material component. Because of the aforementioned reasons above, I have no reason to think 3,4, and 5 are relevant.
Logic as a non-material entity at a bear minimum at least requires a non-material mind. That does not necessarily constitute a god, but it does fit the description for some. If you want to offer that logic or such a mind as this just "exists" without a material referent, why not do that for any sort of entity? This I think results in in absurdity though....
You keep creating straw men of atheism. This is the third and fourth time I think you've done this.
Some atheists may very well say this, but some are atheists because they don't have good reasons to believe in a god of any kind. The challenge here is for theists convince the atheist otherwise.
Second, you keep insisting that atheists claim a god does not exist. Not all atheists do...they simply have no reason to believe a god exists. And as I stated before, some atheist conclude that god does not exist rather than presume a god does not exist.
Edit: Shortened it.
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
this is totally correct. The difference between us is that I can put up a rational argument for how I know that logic is universal whereas you can't. I know it is universal because in my world-view, man is made in the image of God and his mode of reasoning reflects that of his creator who is the Universal. On the other hand, in order to exercise "reason", you have to presuppose that logic is universal , ie. that your "logic" applies as logic in the external world. You have to do this, you have no choice but you have no universal with which to prove it. This is why atheism is irrational.
Here, I am not quite sure whether you're accepting that non-material exist things or not. We do know that non-material things exist. Logic exists, love exists, music exists. The difference between us is that you have no choice but to be a reductionist because you have no category in which to put these things. This is the absurdity of your position. Again I know about them because my world-view has an explanation for them.
No it isn't circular because I start from the basis of a world-view which has a universal basis for logic. I can justify its use as a starting point.
in that case please explain your use of "Law". Either logic is universal or it isn't. If it isn't, then there is no such thing as rationality, the whole of existence is absurd and no-one should be in an asylum.
please say whatever you need to.......I'm happy to take things point by point.
ok, I am........ is that alright?.......I mean, I do need to check that my view holds good. Btw, d'you think you should be "asking these sorts of questions"?....... not even if your eternity hung on it?
but there is because:
a] it was never my question
b] it doesn't address the issue which was my question.
Your answer was that you had no evidence that logic was anything other than "natural". I think you have ample evidence - I've given you some myself........ however....
By this you could mean that:
a] it is material.........but I asked you to show me a lump and you've already agreed that the notion is "absurd". I can add the propositions of mathematical logic to my laptop content without adding any material content whatsoever.
b] It's origins are 'naturalistic'. As I pointed out, this is not my question. However, I will point out, en passant, that this is also an irrational, unscientific presupposition. The proposition that logic arose from dead matter is neither repeatable, testable nor observable and thus belongs to the realms of pseudo-science.
In the UK, such assertions are continually foisted on an unsuspecting public by atheist/humanist organisations like the BBC and Channel 4!
no, I didn't miss it, but I'd already told you it didn't answer the question.
your above statement is self-contradictory. Either it purports to use logic in an effort to communicate your argument or it doesn't . If it does, then your premise is that I am using the same mode of logic as you are. If you deny this, then you are admitting that your form of logic is totally personal, subjective and merits no serious attention from anyone else! I had a second or two's problem with the syntax but otherwise it seemed ok!
so what?...are you starting a 'Sympathy for Hitler Club'?.....ok, Attilla the Hun.........whatever!
no they aren't........I give you....... Rationalism!! Logic set free of truth/morality could be anything! Its a digression however. When Sartre concludes that he could help an old lady across the roador knock her down and steal her bag, he is being rationalistic ie. exercising corrupted logic.
so how do you know whether you are exercising logic?........or whether anyone is?
yes, by the time we get to Godel, the basis of truth is long changed anyway. Without absolute truth you have no absolute logic. As you're not sure of your epistemology, you can't be sure of your logic either. That doesn't stop atheists presupposing it......that's why this is called, 'Rational Response Squad' !
so show me a lump
no I haven't.......on the contrary I've substantiated them all the way down the line. I've given examples......you presumably also think 'love' is material, 'morality' is material....... in fact all human emotions are material......and that's only the start. Presumably lumps of love and joy fly around in your house!
.......this is the absurd reductionism of atheism.......it's why atheism is bereft of meaning and values. You may be a "good" person, but you have no reason for being so and don't know why........and anyway free-will is an illusion so it's all down to the chance arrangement of your wiring. Atheists come on; I've met some, full of humanistic pride and not realising that their world-view demeans them to the level of a meaningless robot...... and you think it provides a world-view to live by.
no I haven't, you have........ explain why I can't see a lump of logic. If there are norms of logic and they are only material, howcome there are norms, since the wiring in everyones' brains is different? If you say there are no norms, how do you know your purported use of it in this debate bears any relation to 'truth' or rationality?
When will you stop begging these questions? No-one can force you to accept rational argument. I've met atheists who will argue that black is blue until the cows come home. Atheists are quite free to tell themselves fairy stories with which to console themselves.........it all comes down to human pride.
I don't care if thy come out paisley, in six shades of pink, they won't show you logic.......you won't look into your neurons and synapses and see bits of 'ones' combining to make 'two's'.
This is just a statement of humanistic optimism....everything is possible given enough time........well NO actually...... some things just don't happen, but this simple fact doesn't enter atheistic thinking..........no matter how long you wait you won't look into your neurons and synapses and see bits of 'ones' combining to make 'two's'....... it's like Elijah waiting while the priests of Baal work themselves into a frenzy........it ain't gonna happen! Furthermore, it isn't a question of "invoking" anything. We have two possible categories.....if you choose the absurd one so be it......it is not an argument from silence for the devastatingly simple reason that we have the rational alternative possibility that revelation explains it. However mystical Wittgenstein waxes, like it or not, HE has spoken, HE is not silent. I argue from a specific world-view .....it is not silent on these matters, it puts forward a rational explanation for all the human attributes and experience which your view has no answer for. Does that view involve a deity? Yes. Have I asked you to presuppose a deity in pointing out the absurdity of your position? No.
see above, all brains are different, therefore there is no such thing as rationality. Furthermore, there is no logic on Mars because no-one's brain is on Mars.
you'd like to think so
which ones would those be? Your "circular reasoning" and "argument from silence" protests are demonstrably flawed.
3] Point out that atheists are materialists
this is relevant.......you've confirmed that you fall in this category.
4] Point out that materialists don't believe in non-material entities
this is relevant......you've confirmed that this is your position........you don't believe in love or logic.
5] Ask why you, as an atheist, purport to use a non-material entity.
this is relevant because the question remains unanswered on the basis that you deny its premise in the face of all empirical/experiential evidence to the contrary.
this is true.
you're reducing the question to "function" again. It fits the description because some realise that logic must be universal, absolute, infinite and personal [ie logic is something which exists in its use ergo where a self-conscious mind is at work]
you answered your own question. Some entities are only material. The Bible tells us which is which. It asserts that Man is both material and non-material. The empirical/experiential evidence suggests that it is correct.
no I haven't...I've left the above quote in deliberately.........where? This site proclaims the irrationality of Christianity. Atheism is irrational since atheists proclaim something as true which they can't prove. Rationally, they should be agnostics. ie. atheists without convictions!
it is a frequent [and nonsensical] claim of many atheists that they, "don't have good reasons to believe in a god of any kind."........ I keep putting up pictures of Ganesh just to show them one!
see above.........if this is true, to be polite, they've lived very sheltered lives.
Haven't ALL atheists arrived at a "conclusion"? Otherwise they'd be agnostics. They have reached their "conclusion" on the basis of the "presumption" that the non-existence of God can be proved.
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.
Now you're really getting circular. You say logic is universal and you don't presuppose a god, but then you use god as justification of how you know that logic is universal.
And with non-material things too. You say logic is non material and you don't presuppose a god, but then you use god as justification of how you know non-material things exists.
The only one concerned with such things seems to be you. These sorts of questions your asking for are simply unanswerable, and you've constantly begged the question in your attempts to answer them, which I knew would probably happened when you started pressing your points.
Yes, you can add propositions on your laptops, but it's a function logic gates that control voltage differences. In actuality, you are adding material to your laptop by adding electrons to create potential differences across the logic gates on your laptop. When you store information, you are rearranging the polarity of molecules on spinning platters. When you download my post, you will be receiving a stream of electrons from a wire or stream of photons from an access point...all these things are material.
Learning logic is as repeatable as every newborn child that matures to a point such that he or she has the cognitive abilities to learn such things. That's very observable, repeatable, and testable. What's not is the notion that such things are non-material.
Personal? You're overstating the position again.
I'm as sure about it insofar that it is used often by numerous people.
You again question beg by supposing a god for an explanation, punt to mystery (that is, and argument from silence). I've given you reason to believe that logic has a necessary material component. I'll add this for free: In the cases were persons suffer from brain damage, these people's ability to exercise reason is severely diminished. In the case that people become brain dead, their ability to reason stops. I'm not vying for some sort of humanistic optimism, rather making observations about the nature of logic in relation to brains. To say that one will never understand this is at best an argument from silence. I don't have a crystal ball to see the future, so I don't know what they will find. I'm just going on what is known, and from the looks of it, logic as we know it requires as material component
Strawman #5
Does a picture of a pink unicorn mean one has good reason to believe that they exist?
Now that I've posted one, you have reason to believe that they exist.
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
that's right, like you take a leap of faith into atheism. Once one divorces 'truth' from reason, one has no way of knowing what truth i.
no, I haven't related my argument to ontology whatsoever. My world-view is not held simply on the basis of an abstract conception of God but upon his revelation.
see above.
yes it does......on the epistemic basis that it knows nothing it presupposes that nothing exists.......as in, "we see nothing in theis vacuum, so nothing exists"........and then came sub-atomic physics.
this would be agnosticism.
the claim, for reasonably educated people, is a nonsense.......I could put pictures of gods up to prove it. On the other hand, the statement, "I don't believe in a God" is just reductionist and should read, "I don't believe the God of the Bible exists" and does indeed evince the speaker's epistemic state because he has no revelation. His presupposition is that no propositional revelation is available.
if you remember, I did ask whether you thought anyone could refute Descartes' central thesis.
ok, in that case you have to decide what scripture 'is'.
but I've never argued that scripture is framed in dialectic terms. Liberals apply dialectics to it because they've abandoned true truth. You are right, the Bible always assumes the truth of its own statements.
It doesn't follow that you have to presuppose their truth when determining their correspondence with the external world or their rationality.
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.
no, I'm not asking YOU to presuppose God - I explained this in some detail. There is no point in me debating from YOUR standpoint.........that is absurd!!!
see above.......I'm pointing out that I have a justification and you don't.
yes, I've taken on board that you are not concerned with truth.
you mean by you?........of course.
but I already have my answers........which you are attempting to ludicrously exclude by the absurd notion that I should argue from YOUR point of view!!!!!
well, you have begged the question how there can be any uniformity to logic when all brains are different.
you have begged the question why, if logic is material, I cannot test it empirically like any other material.
you have begged my question regarding all other human attributes and experience.
you have begged my question regarding your conflation of signal and content/meaning.
you have begged my question, how you can know that logic is in fact logic
you have begged my question as to the location of your universal.
you have begged the question why there should be any uniformity of reasoning at all!
you begged the question on what basis you could identify truth without an absolute.
you then proceeded to assert that you were not concerned with truth anyway!
bu your problem is that you can't prove the relationship between materiality and sub-atomics.......non locality makes a nonsense of your thesis anyway. Furthermore you beg the question by insisting that a stream of electrons is synonymous with content ie. meaning!!!! Tell me the weight of a beam of light.
which again begs the question.........the question was not do we see logic develop in human beings but whether the development of logic from dead material is observable, repeatable testable........I'll help.....it isn't. A newborn infant is not dead material.
our brains are different, why should anyone share it? Is the above a statement of truth? ie an absolute?
quite........that's because while people make errors of reasoning.......the principles of logic remain the same. The question is why?
no you haven't.......where? The brain, in the Christian view, is the interface between the body and the spirit, it is required for the functioning of the body. This does not show that logic is either generated in the body or limited to it.
and if you damage your speaker cables your signal will suffer and so will the content.......that doesn't demonstrate that the signal and content are synonymous.......as you are well aware.
this is "nothing-buttery"... a "nothing-but" explanation........inevitable because you think love does not exist!
lovely picture........nice shade too......... if you google Ganesh you will discover that indeed Ganesh is a god of the Hindu's .........sorry about your education!
Now, regarding unicorns I have good reason to believe the Bible. The Bible mentions unicorns on numerous occasions
therefore I have good reason to believe that unicorns existed and are now extinct........btw, I once heard in a fairy tale of a black and white striped horse!!!
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.
the implication of your flawed assertion is that Sartre was bonkers to start with........furthermore your simplistic notion implies that the existentialists came along they said, "all this reason is getting us nowhere, let's try being unreasonable!
impossible to tell from this distance!
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.
FREEMINER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You promised to try. Can't you just reference the post # then comment?
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
Freeminer doesn't even know what logic means. His posts are utter tripe.
Just give up freeminer, ubuntu is destroying you; and we're all laughing as it happens.
Freeminer,
No offense, but most anyone else would have probably given up on chasing this debate because your posts are confusing and unstructured. I think you'd do well to focus your arguments more rather than nitpicking each phrase to death. Often times, you've overstated or misrepresented the positions of the people her because of this.
Per our discussion, I think it is has become pretty obvious (at least to me) that you don't really understand existentialism, atheism, and how atheists think. Existentialism isn't really a big deal around here, but atheism is. I think you' do well to read content about the many reasons that lead people to atheism and understand the various types of atheism before you start making blanket assertions about atheists.
For these reasons, I think I'm going to let this die. This will be my last post per this conversation. The positions have been made and reasserted many times. Let the readers (if there are any) decide for themselves. I'm probably the laughing stock of many on this forum for having pursued it as long as I have and people are beginning to question my sanity.
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
which only goes to show that the atheists' sense of humour is as irrational as the rest of him!
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.
ubuntuAnyone,
I enjoyed reading your arguments. Thanks for your efforts in this thread and other like it. I know freeminer will never admit it but you completely kicked his ass in this argument.
What you mean is that, you need to muddy the water. I have carefully addressed your every point in sequence. You are not this stupid! You have clearly not been overly confused since you have answered my points coherently and in order.
Here is a series of structured points:
1] You have stated that your position is one of atheism.
Implication: You irrationally conclude that the God of the Bible does not exist while asserting that you have no proof for or against his existence.
2] You do not believe in non-material entities.
Implication: All human experience and emotions comprise physical components of the human brain.
Implication: Human experience and emotion is synonymous with electro-chemical signals. Since this is empirically untrue, your belief is irrational.
3] Your purported use of logic, which is a non-material entity, is irrational.
4] You assert that logic is a material entity.
Implication: Logic only exists as a material component of the human brain.
Implication: There is no external universal reference point by which anyone can identify what logic is.
Implication: Since it is empirically untrue that logic is a physical component of the human brain, your assertion is irrational.
Implication: If logic were a physical component of the human brain, being unable to identify logic, you have no way of recognising it.
Implication: The Law of non-contradiction does not exist since every brain is different.
Implication: If the Law of Contradiction does not exist, rationality does not exist, therefore the whole of existence is absurd.
Implication: Since you cannot live consistently as though life is absurd [as evinced by your posts], and your world-view concludes that it is; your world-view is irrational [unreasonable].
5] You have stated that you are not concerned about truth.
Implication: the truth of whether God exists or not is of no importance to you
Implication: morality is of no importance to you.
Implication: The inference that any statement made by you constitutes truth, is irrational since there is no way of interpreting whether you intended it to be understood as truth or not.
6] You deny the existence of any Universal.
Implication: You have no basis for any statement purporting to be absolute truth, yet irrationally continue to make such statements.
7] You assert that your Existentialism retains some rationality.
Implication: You have no basis by which to show that Existentialism retains any rationality.
Implication: Were Existentialism to retain any rationality, you have no way of showing it and therefore you'd never know how much was rational and how much not.
hmm.......you see we can't take this statement seriously because you've already said you are not concerned with truth! Furthermore, were it true, it looks like failure to explain yourself, to say nothing of the fact that the sum total of your argument has been flawed assertions of "circular reasoning" and "question begging". If you have questions regarding other forms of atheism, I'm more than happy to address them.
However, you haven't been able to elucidate any critical differences. I've met many atheists and a huge proportion have come out of unfortunate "religious" backgrounds and have been innoculated against what they were told was Christianity. Perhaps humanistic pride has taken hold and they can never come to the truth. There is no onus on the Holy Spirit to continually confront a man with it.
well, of course your sanity is questionable!!!!!
anyone who starts out by proclaiming his Existentialism is proclaiming his own irrationality and therefore his own insanity!!!!
My list of points above is not for you, but, as you say, for other readers since, contrary to your assertion, atheists have all, consciously or otherwise, accepted a dichotomy in their world-view between reason and reality and are therefore existentialists of one form or another. I think we have at least highlighted your own.
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.
I've "had my ass kicked"........despite the interminable list of irrationalities we've uncovered which not one of you can refute!!!!
you see.......you support my claim that the problems atheists have is not an intellectual one but just humanistic pride. Atheists are free to tell themselves fairy stories; it's their God-given right!
.......... "tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies........."
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.
You've already stated to me before that you disbelieve the scientific theories of the Big Bang and of Evolution. So I'm fairly sure if that's where your mindset is at, we're going to have to completely restructure your thinking before we can even begin to start having proper discussions with you.
Since I doubt not many here have the expertise nor the patience to do that, not to mention that you yourself aren't even willing to accept that your thinking could be incorrect, pretty much makes you a lost cause.
In closing I would only ask of you to ponder the following proposition sincerely and critically "Could you be wrong?".
Also like to give big props to ubuntu for tackling this drone for as long as he did, good effort - but you can't stop a tree growing by chopping it down; you have to uproot the stump.
I was flicking through my psychology textbook and found a defense mechanism that reminded me of you, and the things you often say as quoted above. Have a read and, once again, I urge you to look critically at yourself:
“Cognitive Dynamics of Projection. They showed that people actively work to suppress thoughts about the possibility that they might have an undesirable trait (say, dishonesty), but this ongoing effort makes thoughts about the unwanted trait highly accessible, so they chronically use this trait concept to explain other’s behaviour and end up routinely attributing the trait to others.”
This is you in a nutshell, constantly spouting hypocritical statements which you yourself are guilty of, often I shack my head in utter amazement at how you can trick yourself like that, but here it is, the self defense mechanism known as projection.
You should work to combat this!
Ah, a variant on the "If I can't see it, it can't see me" defense.
That only works on the Ravenous Bug-Blatter Beast of Traal
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.
as in......."if I can't see God, he can't see me.........!"
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.
just before you start, you should know that I'm not susceptible to patronisation........but, if you need help with these issues I'm happy to oblige!
I wait only for you to prove it........not doing too well so far.
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.
No, more like "if I don't pay attention to the evidence staring me in the face, maybe it will go away".
Are you not looking at the counter arguments?
Think about this - you claim to know your God. You claim he is a God who loves you but you are scared of him and death.
I have no evidence that your God exists (would love to see some) so I don't believe in him. I have no fear of the things that frighten you.
Which makes more sense?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin